On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 09:12, Ken D'Ambrosio wrote:
> On Mon, 2002-03-11 at 09:53, Steve Lord wrote:
>
> > How recent are your XFS commands? It looks like you device size does not
> > play well with this version of mkfs, there was a version which had
> > problems like this, and it is possible the current one still does.
> >
> > Basically mkfs sliced the device up into chunks and hit a boundary
> > condition on the size. Simon's suggestion would work, but you should
> > be able to up the size to say 915m out of the 916 you have.
>
> Thanks so much for the help! (Though you confused me using "m" instead
> of "g" -- pesky drive sizes are getting insane.) Anyway, 916g worked
> like a charm; I guess the little extra bit on the end (.01398945g by
> kcalc) was confusing things. My xfs commands, along with the kernel
> code etc., were compiled and installed from CVS source downloaded
> yesterday, so I guess you can't get much newer. ;-)
Woops, not enought coffee yet, OK, looks like mkfs is still size
sensitive. I will pass the information along.
Steve
--
Steve Lord voice: +1-651-683-3511
Principal Engineer, Filesystem Software email: lord@xxxxxxx
|